list_v2_user_webhooks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements, scope of returned data, pagination, or response behavior; 'User Webhooks' is just a label, not a disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief and front-loaded, but 'User Webhooks' is redundant with the tool name and the GET line is an endpoint rather than a functional sentence. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and annotations covering return shape and safety, and no parameters, the description needs little. However, it lacks an explicit statement about what is being listed (user-specific vs global webhooks) and does not disambiguate from the similar sibling list_webhooks, leaving minor but real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is completely sufficient. The description has nothing to add, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('User Webhooks') and the HTTP endpoint (GET /api/v2/user/webhooks), making the action implicitly a list/read. However, it never states the purpose in a complete phrase such as 'List webhooks for the current user,' so it largely restates the tool's name and endpoint rather than explaining what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like list_webhooks or create_v2_user_webhooks, nor does it give any condition that would make this endpoint the right choice over a sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.